Posts Tagged ‘Public Servants Private Profits Nonprofit Charities’
WGU (Western Governors’ University) — Public Servant Nonprofits + Technology + Some Clout, a few Gubernatorial Executive Orders, and ….
And next thing you know, the profits are rolling in.
Western Governors University, I simply decided to look up as the last group on “THE LIST of Corporate Fellows” and which may be the only nonprofit on it. [Incidentally, that link shows where I found the list. This association, where the list was found, was instrumental in pushing fatherhood initiatives upon the states, BEFORE welfare reform of 1996. However, that’s not all it’s up to. You are supposed to make the connection between whose “List” it was (only one of many similar ones, but it does carry some serious clout), what is Western Governors’ University doing on that list, and who and what are these Governors’ Associations, ANYHOW? There’s a reason for it and a history behind it.
There also may be some closer than comfort connections to things like municipal bankruptcies, although billionaire multinational industry leaders have had it all under control for decades anyhow, given their ongoing clout with the federal government…
If you can comprehend that, and then understand how could some of the leaders of industry have met IN Detroit, in 2009, to “Plan the Future” (i.e., new presidency, right?) — and how could the City of Detroit be bankrupt? If you get that far, then maybe I can complete the post in draft showing what turned up on The Children’s Trust page of the Michigan State Government website, and what private corporations are promoting their wares through this high-profile, high-publicity statewide website, and how THEY connect to the wish to indoctrinate, excuse me, EDUCATE everyone at public expense, allegedly for the public benefit (which should put the condition of Detroit — or the honesty of those policymakers — into more clear focus. Then, hopefully, the soul-searching may start up again, although I’m not “banking” on it…)
Compare THIS to the Bankruptcy:
NATIONAL SUMMIT TO DEFINE AMERICA’S FUTURE” was held, sponsored by the Detroit Economic Club, and the Presenting Sponsors were FORD and DOW (as in DOW Chemical), hosted at the Marriott. Among the many speakers (see LIST and do explore the summit site) is DeRocco, on The Manufacturing Institute.
Are these people America’s primary spokesmodels, or just its current Managers?
At any rate, one of the Board members of Western Governors University was a speaker, that’s the only reason I knew about the 2009 conference…
(the Detroit material is enclosed in a table, to separate it from the WGU material).
Like Western Governors University, The Detroit Economic Club can be put in historic, self-description, Wikipedia Description, or “Look Up a Nonprofit” description (i.e., look at its tax returns [from that link, you can extract the EIN# and look up the others at foundationcenter.org. I notice that it’s called “Economic Club of Detroit” on that list) including who’s been running it. Its website (Self-description) contains the motto “Vital Issues, Prominent Voices, Business Connections, Educational Outreach.” Judging by what “Sponsorship” costs (from $5,000 up to $50,000), I’d say that Business Connection is probably the main issue driving the other three…The SPONSORS list.
Main point — it was formed in 1934. Someone was thinking strategically about the future… Chairman of the board is Wm. Clay Ford, Jr., there’s an “Honorable” or two on the trustees, and only one person, the Exec Director, is paid. It’s SOLE nonprofit purpose is running the conferences (costs, $1.2 million or so) 33 last year. (actually the two “Honorables” include the Mayor of Detroit, The Hon. David Bing, and Hon. Henry W. Archer, former Mayor of Detroit (1993-2001), first African-American President of the ABA (who didn’t allow African American MEMBERSHIP before 1943!!), and a former Michigan Supreme Court Justice. See link for other distinctions.
From the Fairleigh Dickinson link re: The Hon. Henry W. Archer:
April 2013 (conferred June 2013)
Wikipedia also mentions a member of “Prince Hall” (Masonic) Lodge, a whole other issue as the lodges were also racist. With these leaders, whose futures don’t look anything close to bankrupt or distraught — how come Detroit as a corporation took the hit?
A small slice of Mr. Ford’s profile, other than being Henry Ford’s grandson:
He’s not going to be hurting. People who aren’t so mobile, and don’t have investments in (or chair) international corporations ARE hurting in Detroit. Perhaps they should start reading the CAFRs and figure out a response.
“Western Governors University UT EIN# 84-1383926
[a table of its escalating yearly assets; with a few links to a tax return for that year)
The IRS Select Exempt Check says WGU is a Salt-Lake City “Exempt” nonprofit, like any other. Contributions to it are 100% deductible. now, what sector of the economy might be attracted to donate to such a group?
EIN Legal Name (Doing Business As) City State Country Deductibility Status
84-1383926 Western Governors University Salt Lake Cty UT United States PC
If you actually start looking at these tax returns — the revenues are astronomical ($152 million for Year 2011) and also increasing by a GOOD chunk each year. However, they are hiring more (Salaries also increased) managed to give away more grants than the prior year. Question should be asked about where is the money flowing in from — meaning, the public contributions part. I’ve posted the tax return again down lower.
Read the rest of this entry »
In the Beginning, in Hindsight (more on early AFCC newsletters, SVN/CRC, and could we have prevented this?)
Just grabbed this section off a recent post “Why Supervised Visitation Sucks” after posting it. I’m a woman and I get to redecorate at will.
I’m trying to consider whether anyone could’ve then (and could, now) headed off at the pass the multi-state shape-shifting nonprofits involving public officials (such as AFCC, SVN and CRC, mentioned herein).
There’s no question they are networked, and fast moving; like a maurading invasive species. Such is the nature of how danged easy it is to incorporate anywhere, anything (A few bucks and a statement on a piece of paper), and how we, the public, still don’t know how to track down how our own public officials are being funded.
It seems to me quite intentional that the purpose was to bypass representative legislation through forming multi-state and international nonprofits up front, attracting funding, and holding conferencs where the sun don’t shine (actually meaning, out of state for the target jurisdictions; they have been known to prefer sunny climates for conference locations. Like, Hawaii, or Bermuda, or in Southern California…).
I wanted to reference the AFCC talking about starting up this field (or at least the SVN), and decided to add an inset on the infamous Viola Stroud… I wonder in retrospect, how things might have gone if more of the public knew how vital it is to follow the money, and watch the conference circuits of groups like AFCC and CRC, not to mention SVN, and then connect this to the federal funding. Instead of go with the social scientist crowd, and (while making a fine living off grants to evaluate these programs) quipping, well, it’s OK…. so long as they are well-trained and recognize a batterer or abuser when they see one? Let us see how we can fix that….
AFCC Startup Literature, and Viola Stroud/CRC (inset)
AFCC Newsletter Fall 1992 (Vol. 11 No. 4) leads off with announcement of the formation (previous May) of the Supervised Visitation Network in New York, and presenter Tim Ballew (see also below) explains how it was funded and run. This is in Indianapolis.. So now, I have three states (so far) in which SVN was incorporated: New York, Tennessee and Florida… Above all keep in mind it is a NONPROFIT CORPORATION (to the extent that SVN has been operating legally, which as it turns out, is hardly all the time) whose board members tend to run NONPROFITS that take FEDERAL GRANT SUBSIDIES for this field, which was heavily promoted for application to divorce, not just kids in placement (dependency, that is). Why stop a “great” idea when it’s started??
Perhaps records don’t go back to 1992, however only a 2005 incorporated NEW YORK CHAPTER of the SVN actually shows up as a nonprofit. Search HERE, check status type ALL and search option “Contains” to view. A search of “Charities.NYS.gov” on “Supervised Visitation” pulls up only the “Little Angels” one (infamous for having involved a woman later convicted of robbing the estates of elders; with this corporation involved, aka Viola Stroud. Who was involved in the famous (to some of us) Genia Shockome case as a supervised visitation provider….).
Continued from my last post on, well, the publishing arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and several topics. Part of being (who I am) is the tendency to Look Things Up. So, I started looking up those attorneys who helped explain the new custody law in Pennsylvania.
This 7,000 word post has a very detailed chart at the bottom (hard to produce, as to html) and has soaked up too much of my time (I am still typing in “html” compose mode, visually). I then probably made it a little worse by introductory prose paragraphs. BUT, I still maintain that it’s valuable information to consider — these points are not raised enough among parents. Feedback solicited (comments). One way to understand the post may be to FIRST scroll down to some of the charts (for a visual) then go back and read the explanations.
On the other hand, I don’t owe anyone anything on this matter. I did my own lookups, networking, collaboration, and beyond that — whatever gets posted is public service announcement. It’s not addressed to people who are comfortable with groupthink (on the courts), uninvolved or unconcerned about the significance of dysfunctional (etc.) courts on the country, or the presence about money-laundering possibilites that each such setup presents, or the undermining of representative government in favor of the therapeutic, over-diagnosing, medicating, institutionalizing, iatrogenic “Nanny State,” and not a very nice nanny, either.
Iatrogenic (from “Wikipedia” definition):
The term iatrogenesis means brought forth by a healer from the Greek ἰατρός (iatros, “healer”) and γένεσις (genesis, “origin”); as such, in its earlier forms, it could refer to good or bad effects. . . .The transfer of pathogens from the autopsy room to maternity patients, leading to shocking historical mortality rates of puerperal fever (a k a “childbed fever”) at maternity institutions in the 19th century, was a major iatrogenic catastrophe of that time. The infection mechanism was first identified by Ignaz Semmelweis.
So, yes, Pennsylvania had a Custody Law Revamp passed in 2011
Jan. 2011 article (fairly substantial) in the Legal Intelligencer on the new custody law.
(more on how it happened, at bottom of this post). This post looks at a PBI release with many attorney authors (plus a single Judge, and some AFCC Psychologists, i.e., Arnold & Kasey Shienvold, Ph.D.’s) on the impact of the new custody law. See article for some issues it raises.
In fact, at the bottom of this post — something you probably won’t find anywhere else on the Internet — is a chart of the authors, with columns for “how AFCC ARE they?” and basic descriptors. While AFCC is hardly “The Skull & Bones” of Yale, it still is an association which many more judges and attorneys have adopted the mindset of, or may even be members of, without saying so on their website. In other words, its influences are felt – they are real — but not always mentioned directly.
While I did (or started) this for Pennsylvania — it really could and should be done for EVERY state as an ignorance-reducing movement for people who like to complain about judges, the courts, evaluators, GALs, etc. It has not been done (yet) for the primary reasons, as far as I can tell, is limited resources (i.e., you’re looking at a volunteer blogger, and family court veteran, which generally means, SOMETHING was stripped violently and suddenly (but in a process that still somehow manages to last for YEARS) out of one’s life — whether children, or assets // income, social support networks, or all of the above. So the people that are most motivated to report (or should be), are often least financially positioned to. (I’m working on it!).
And those who have funding, as nonprofits themselves, associating with other nonprofits for clout (just like AFCC does) and press, and a “day in the sun” — are less than motivated to examine the function of Nonprofits (per se) as a topic relevant to the family courts AT ALL. They too, would rather form coalitions and self-selecting groupings to run conferences, publish, attract followers, and proclaim theories.
RELEVANCE of answering the “How AFCC ARE they?“: Membership in AFCC, or agreement with and repeated references to its standards are throughout the family law system — yet the organization has been at many levels functioning as a monopoly (while private in association, conferencing, funding, etc.) trade association among my PUBLIC employees. It has a definite mindset towards matters which tend to bring custody cases to the courts to start with — domestic violence and child abuse, in particular. Or, co-parenting when there has been DV or CA. And yet the organization — for all its own self-promotion, dramatic conferences with flashy brochures — is under-reported in the MSM press, and is scarcely mentioned !!! by advocates involved in the stopping domestic violence and child abuse industry.
As such, few people have even ruffled their feathers, or disturbed the seas on which they operate, let alone questioned the practices AS an organization. VERY few, although definitely some have. And yet this organization — and the others that work under, or with it (much of my blog names and describes them, specifically) — is able to operate with more influence and less accountability by virtue of it being “under the radar” of people who need to know MOST about it — which is 1. parents, and 2. all taxpayers.
Read the rest of this entry »
This has been a long time coming.
I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.
This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.
Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.
[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]
Read the rest of this entry »